Sarah Eskreis-Winkler: Why multiple choice isn't always the enemy

In this scientific age, it seems fit to equip all students with the necessary tools to understand the world around them -- like how a microwave works and why it is a bad idea to heat things wrapped in aluminum foil.

Unfortunately, the University tacitly permits us to take the "sciences" out of "School of Arts and Sciences." Lurking in the math and science departments are courses less intensive than most high school classes that no self-respecting science major would consider. So try to find some classes where on the exam, each question has one (and only one) correct answer.

In a world of increasing moral relativism, it's a good idea to remind yourself that some things are, in fact, black and white. The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is pi. Every time. There's something to be said for that.

This column won't convince you to take more math or science classes, especially since most are not GPA-friendly. But maybe at least you will leave with a better understanding of why you should.

Because today's professionals learn more and more about less and less, it is easy to lose sight of how interrelated everything is: biology lectures are based on chemical concepts, chemistry labs are rooted in the laws of physics and physics equations are mathematics applied to the real world. Similarly, the methodologies used in studying social science and humanities are modified versions of "hard" science techniques.

These dependencies are expected. In each discipline, we use the scientific method to organize the world we see based on the way the human brain perceives order. It works quite well.

"Real" science experiments have good control variables and are reproducible. This makes them less disputable. Radical scientific ideas may be controversial at first, but over time, evidence converges and a consensus emerges. It is possible to persuade people of counterintuitive scientific notions, such as Australians walk around upside-down.

Yet when it comes to contentious political issues, convincing a single person is often a Herculean task. There are just too many factors to prove decisively that watching violent movies directly fosters criminal activity.

Social scientists must apply a diluted form of the scientific method to their political case studies and historical analyses. This is not a theoretical flaw, but a result of the obvious restraints on their data-collection conditions. A proliferation of variables and outside factors distort their results so even when they see a strong correlation, it is nearly impossible to convincingly demonstrate a cause and effect. Conclusions, therefore, emerge imperfect and debatable.

So while history sometimes becomes a malleable string of events people use to prove whatever they want, at least when someone has the wrong answer in multi-variable calculus, you can convince them of it.

Science, too, has its fluctuations. Too often, it is presented as fact -- equations and concepts to be memorized and understood -- rather than a growing, morphing body.

Like politics, science is a process of debate and discussion. Someone comes along and publishes a finding that seems to make sense. Successful attempts by others to reproduce the results add weight.

Over time, accumulating evidence fine tunes (or disproves) the original hypothesis and a new theory slowly comes into focus. And after all, every scientific theory proposed eventually is found null and void. So maybe there really is more truth in your comp lit class than in the present theory on dark matter.

Now that's hard to deal with considering our confidence in the current worldview. But calling our theories infallible would deprive future generations of the opportunity to surpass us.

Nevertheless, science and math teach the art of thinking. Even if the givens are false, the proof itself remains valid. And clear knowledge of how the system works in the pure case is bound to be helpful.

The social studies are a careful balance. Scientific exactness to the extreme promises results so narrow they are practically useless. Yet interpreting evidence too liberally yields vague analysis. Equally useless.

You must understand the two extremes in order to chart a prudent middle course. The shades of gray come into perspective only against the white and black. So buy yourself a TI-83 and get to work.

Sarah Eskreis-Winkler is a College sophomore from Wynnewood, Pa.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.